1 2025:CGHC:17233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1060 of 2025 1 - Waseem Ahmed S/o Shri Mohd. Kadir Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. - 04, Near Gayatri Temple, Thana- Dongargaon, Tahsil- Dongargaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Mohsin Khan S/o Shri Mohd. Aleem Khan Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No.- 06, Mohammad Bhai Ward, Chhuriya, Tahsil- Chhuriya, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.04.2025 VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.04.17 15:59:46 +0530 2 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 627/2024 registered at Police Station Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 336, 338 & 340 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The prosecution story in short is that the complainant Kamrul Hassan has lodged the report on 28.09.2024 against the present applicants at P.S. Kotwali with the averment that the applicants had taken total Rs. 4,00,000/- from the complainant with a promise to provide job to the son and daughter of the complainant in the government departments but when the complainant's son and daughter did not get the job and came to know about the fake appointment letter he requested to return the amount upon which the applicants had given a cheque which was later dishonoured due to which the complainant made the report to the police on the basis of which the aforesaid offence has been registered and the applicants have been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that in the meantime the 3 parties have entered into a compromise and the amount which was taken from the complainant i.e. 4,00,000/- has already been returned by the applicants to the complainant and for the same a compromise agreement has also been executed and the complainant has also given no objection before the learned sessions court at the time of hearing of bail application. He further submits that delay of about more than two months in lodging of FIR and no proper explanation has been given by the complainant for such delayed lodging of FIR. Therefore,Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the complaint and the present applicants have already been compromised the matter, the applicants have no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and they are in jail since 13.01.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicants are entitled to be released on 4 bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicants – Waseem Ahmed & Mohsin Khan involved in Crime No. 627/2024 registered at Police Station Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 3(5), 336, 338 & 340 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on 5 the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav